Micro Four Thirds - no enthusiasm?

Grainbelt

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of excitement/anticipation re: micro 4/3.

As a P&S user, it seems the perfect stepping stone, and a great around town / hiking / adventure camera. I checked dpreview, and the G1 is the same size, and a bit lighter than my Canon S5.

I see the G10 and LX3 and don't see a significant difference versus my S5IS.. with the micro 4/3 cameras, we should have a great solution!

Is it just to soon to tell? How long until Canikon gets in the game with a thin interchangeable system?

swintonphoto

I think the biggest reason for the lack of excitement is because it is coming from Panasonic and Olympus. Canon and Nikon are seen as the Gods of the photo world right now, and, unfortunately, they sort of frown on the others. As an Olympus user myself, I think this micro four thirds system is VERY exciting. I think the likes of the Canon G10 are going to really struggle when the larger micro four thirds sensor, and superior lenses shoot it out of the water - for much the same price too.

But just watch, as soon as Canon or Nikon release a similar product in a year or so (as they tend to do when all the new features come out from Olympus first - ie Live view, dust reduction, etc.), everyone will talk about how amazing Canon is for doing this, and how groundbreaking their developments are, yadayadayada. Well, once again, the groundbreaking ideas come from others, but Canon and Nikon will likely in the long run still get the credit when they follow suit... again...

Cato

Grainbelt wrote:

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of excitement/anticipation re: micro 4/3.

As a P&S user, it seems the perfect stepping stone, and a great around town / hiking / adventure camera. I checked dpreview, and the G1 is the same size, and a bit lighter than my Canon S5.

I see the G10 and LX3 and don't see a significant difference versus my S5IS.. with the micro 4/3 cameras, we should have a great solution!

Is it just to soon to tell? How long until Canikon gets in the game with a thin interchangeable system?

Actually, according to DPReview, the G1 w/supplied lens is about 80g heaver than the Canon S5. And there's no micro 4/3 lens currently available that give the G1 near the reach of the S5's zoom. And if there were such a lens available, the G1 package would be very much larger and heavier than the S5, as the lens would need to be about the same length as a conventional 4/3 lens (I think). IMO, the G1 is simply not smaller enough than entry-level DSLRs. I'm sure that Olympus, Panasonic and whoever else is hopping on board is wokring on the size issue.

FWIW, there are many accusations that DPReview is heavily biased in favor of Canikon. As swintonphoto stated, I'm sure there would be more media attention if one of the "Big 2" released this system. Samsung has stated they (and therfore possibly Pentax) were working on a competitor to micro 4/3 (m4/3?), and basically all you heard was the sound of one hand clapping...

Cato

MSRP is $799 w/kit lens. Ouch...

swintonphoto

It sounds to me from what I have read that the Oly ones are looking to replace their SP line - which is in the $400-500 range. I bet thats what the new Oly one will sit at. Thats what their E-410 sits at, and it has more gizmos inside than the micro camera will have. I expect the intial release in the spring of the micro 4/3 Oly will be around $500, and will then settle around $400 after a few months.

NikonsandVstroms

swintonphoto wrote:

It sounds to me from what I have read that the Oly ones are looking to replace their SP line - which is in the $400-500 range. I bet thats what the new Oly one will sit at. Thats what their E-410 sits at, and it has more gizmos inside than the micro camera will have. I expect the intial release in the spring of the micro 4/3 Oly will be around $500, and will then settle around $400 after a few months.

That would be pretty quick, they had nothing for the show that just happen except a hastily prepared mockup that showed a direction for design. I guess they one have to work too long on the imaging side (sensor and processing) because that can just be lifted from any of their cameras as long as it can be miniaturized. The big issue are the lenses, and the packaging itself. If they are where it seemed by that mockup you would need prototypes, testing, making sure everything is in the best possible position.

Then you have production, and building up the stock, I think it will be closer to fall but I would love a surprise

DoctorIt

swintonphoto wrote:

I think the likes of the Canon G10 are going to really struggle when the larger micro four thirds sensor, and superior lenses shoot it out of the water - for much the same price too.

Oh really? Out of the water?

I admit I thought this G1 was pretty neat too, when I first saw it. But I still have yet to see a Panasonic/Olympus/etc sensor that can touch, let alone "blow out of the water" anything from Canon or Nikon. There's a reason they're the best.

marlof

DoctorIt wrote:

I still have yet to see a Panasonic/Olympus/etc sensor that can touch, let alone "blow out of the water" anything from Canon or Nikon.

Agreed, the Panasonic sensors so far are not as good as similar Canon/Nikon APS-C sized sensors, let alone full frame sensors. But I think it's a bit silly to think that the smaller G10 sensor is a match to a 4/3 sensor (which isn't that small...). From what I've seen so far, the G10 sensor goes head to head to the sensor in my LX3 (some say it's a little better, some say it's a little worse). And that one can't hold a candle to my four year old E-1, let alone my one year old E-3.

A 4/3 (or APS-C for that matter) sensor in a small package (like the Olympus mockup) would be a dream come true. There's a reason why the tech-centric folks at dpreview are very thrilled about this new direction (after testing a preproduction G1), even when they are a bit hum-ho about the Four Thirds system.

Personally I'm no fan of the Panasonic G1. It's too big, if I'd want to bring a camera that big, I'd have no issue bringing my existing DSLR. The Olympus mockup was more my cup of tea: a camera with a good sensor that you can take everywhere.

Cato

DoctorIt wrote:

Oh really? Out of the water?

I admit I thought this G1 was pretty neat too, when I first saw it. But I still have yet to see a Panasonic/Olympus/etc sensor that can touch, let alone "blow out of the water" anything from Canon or Nikon. There's a reason they're the best.

Don't know if you know this - and please forgive me if you do - bu the G10 is a P&S with a 1/1.7" sensor. So I'd imagine that a 4/3 sensor would "blow it out of the water".

The problem to me, again, is the size of a m4/3 compared to, say, a G10. A m4/3 camera with a comparable lens (28-140 35mm equiv.) is going to be larger & heavier.

"There's a reason they're {Canon/Nikon} the best." Depending on which market segment you are addressing, I think there are a lot of people who would not agree on this point.

swintonphoto

DoctorIt wrote:

Oh really? Out of the water?

I admit I thought this G1 was pretty neat too, when I first saw it. But I still have yet to see a Panasonic/Olympus/etc sensor that can touch, let alone "blow out of the water" anything from Canon or Nikon. There's a reason they're the best.

Well, the pixel density of the Pana G1 is 5 MP/cm², while the pixel density of the Canon G10 is 34 MP/cm². I don't care who you are, that difference is HUGE. The G1 pixel density is almost identical to that of the new 50D. I think there is definitely potential for some big splashes.

The difference in pixel density in the 50D is twice that of the 5DMkII, and I have seen a zillion arguments on this forum about why that difference is sufficient to sell all your aps gear and upgrade to full frame. Well the G10 pixel density is 7 times more than the G1 - yet no discussion about that difference being enough to upgrade?

pyry

Cato wrote:

Don't know if you know this - and please forgive me if you do - bu the G10 is a P&S with a 1/1.7" sensor. So I'd imagine that a 4/3 sensor would "blow it out of the water".

The problem to me, again, is the size of a m4/3 compared to, say, a G10. A m4/3 camera with a comparable lens (28-140 35mm equiv.) is going to be larger & heavier.

A larger sensor requires larger lens elements to draw a larger picture with. So lenses aren't going to be as small for m4/3 as for small sensor compacts. There's no free lunch really.

But sensibly fast fix-focals can be made quite tiny indeed (pancake lenses, such as the Zuiko 25/2.8). That's what I'm looking forward for from the new system: compact, large-sensor, interchangeable lens, well, rangefinder frankly.

This mock-up from Olympus is pretty close.

Pindy

I don't think there's a lack of enthusiasm because it's Olympus and Panasonic (I for one think Oly has some serious optics clout). I think there's a cautious optimism but a great disappointment at the total market ignorance that led to the G1. When we see those metal rangefinder bodies, pancake primes, and attention to size, you'll see people begin to get the collective horn for this most exciting concept.

NikonsandVstroms

Pindy wrote:

I don't think there's a lack of enthusiasm because it's Olympus and Panasonic (I for one think Oly has some serious optics clout). I think there's a cautious optimism but a great disappointment at the total market ignorance that led to the G1. When we see those metal rangefinder bodies, pancake primes, and attention to size, you'll see people begin to get the collective horn for this most exciting concept.

For Panasonic I think it's the $800 initial price tag, closer to 500 600 maybe and then the investment of the seven to 14 they are making, or however much that adapter will be to put on the nine to 18

DoctorIt

Cato wrote:

Don't know if you know this - and please forgive me if you do - bu the G10 is a P&S with a 1/1.7" sensor. So I'd imagine that a 4/3 sensor would "blow it out of the water".

I have photos from my G9 that are every bit as good as my 30D. Size, pixel density, flux capacitors, etc... ain't everything.

to me the proof isn't in the pixel peeping and spec bickering, it's in the "pudding" so to speak. let's see some G1 sample photos.

Cato

DoctorIt wrote:

I have photos from my G9 that are every bit as good as my 30D. Size, pixel density, flux capacitors, etc... ain't everything.

to me the proof isn't in the pixel peeping and spec bickering, it's in the "pudding" so to speak. let's see some G1 sample photos.

I wouldn't doubt it. I have photos from my Fuji S6000 that are just as good as my DLSR. However, the circumstances are rather strict where the quality of the 2 converge. I would think the current 4/3 offerings would be a pretty good approximation of what m4/3 will be like.

At this stage I'd be more interested in Oly's rangefinder-esque offering than the G1, which is too much like a svelte DSLR - for my tastes.

Grainbelt

Pindy wrote:

I don't think there's a lack of enthusiasm because it's Olympus and Panasonic (I for one think Oly has some serious optics clout). I think there's a cautious optimism but a great disappointment at the total market ignorance that led to the G1. When we see those metal rangefinder bodies, pancake primes, and attention to size, you'll see people begin to get the collective horn for this most exciting concept.

Perfect explanation. And I agree about rangefinderish bodies. That will be great.

NikonsandVstroms

DoctorIt wrote:

I have photos from my G9 that are every bit as good as my 30D. Size, pixel density, flux capacitors, etc... ain't everything.

to me the proof isn't in the pixel peeping and spec bickering, it's in the "pudding" so to speak. let's see some G1 sample photos.

At base ISO or close to it you can do great shots with the point-and-shoot, the jump in size to 4/3 or aps-c gives you more latitude though, more usable ISO, more dynamic range etc. and there is a big jump from the point-and-shoot to either cropped size format and between them it's a slight difference. There is one, but you're not going to have to change how you shoot too much to adapt to either one

ziggy53

While the Micro 4/3rds system is interesting, it is as yet a relative unknown. I am a little concerned about the greatly reduced flange-to-focal-plane distance because it effectively doubles the angle for the exit image of lenses, creating an opportunity for vignetting and field curvature problems. While these problems are not insurmountable, they may actually increase the cost of competent lenses by involving more exotic lens formulas and exotic optical components. This reduced distance complicates the lens designers task considerably.

If the Micro 4/3rds companies wish this could be the most adaptable camera platform yet for adapting older manual focus lenses. There is plenty of room for creating an adapter between body and lens, except that the measures used to condense the focal path of the host camera and native lenses may interfere. For example if the micro lenses on the sensor have been shifted to accommodate the increased exit image angle of native lenses, that would be counter productive to the angles required for lenses used on longer flange-to-focal-plane distance lenses.

Cato

ziggy53 wrote:

While the Micro 4/3rds system is interesting, it is as yet a relative unknown. I am a little concerned about the greatly reduced flange-to-focal-plane distance because it effectively doubles the angle for the exit image of lenses, creating an opportunity for vignetting and field curvature problems. While these problems are not insurmountable, they may actually increase the cost of competent lenses by involving more exotic lens formulas and exotic optical components. This reduced distance complicates the lens designers task considerably.

If the Micro 4/3rds companies wish this could be the most adaptable camera platform yet for adapting older manual focus lenses. There is plenty of room for creating an adapter between body and lens, except that the measures used to condense the focal path of the host camera and native lenses may interfere. For example if the micro lenses on the sensor have been shifted to accommodate the increased exit image angle of native lenses, that would be counter productive to the angles required for lenses used on longer flange-to-focal-plane distance lenses.

Can't much of that be fixed/reduced via in-camera processing or software? I know that's not ideal, but many cameras reduce things like curvature and PF this way.

swintonphoto

Cato wrote:

Can't much of that be fixed/reduced via in-camera processing or software? I know that's not ideal, but many cameras reduce things like curvature and PF this way.

Yes they can. Best to do it optically though.
I trust Olympus in developing their lenses so they do well with the Micro 4/3 system. Zuiko lenses are simply fabulous, and is Olympus' greatest strength. So, I am sure they thought of these issues.

ziggy53

Cato wrote:

Can't much of that be fixed/reduced via in-camera processing or software? I know that's not ideal, but many cameras reduce things like curvature and PF this way.

Lens vignetting and CA/PF are increasingly being accommodated by in-camera processing. Field curvature is a property which cannot be adjusted through software or processing. Stopping down helps by increasing the DOF, but it doesn't correct the problem. Proper lens design is the only solution but a short flange-to-focal-plane distance definitely complicates things.